Posts by InterceptPoint

Wow. What an excellent, excellent post and article. Greenfield has clearly nailed it. But being a Freeper in reasonably good standing I would add one small item to his otherwise perfect analysis.

From the article:

"Democrats went into this election convinced that the tide of demographic change was on their side. That tide depends heavily on immigration. If Trump secures the border, deports illegal aliens and revamps immigration to serve national interests, then the Democrats lose their demographic future."

Greenfield simply needed to add: "and manages to get the Democrat's Election Fraud under control ..." then it would be perfect. Trump needs to turn Jeff Sessions loose to really investigate election fraud, get some controls in place for 2020 and put a few Dems in jail based on their illegal activities in 2016.

I have no doubt hes not going to stop the recount. He originally said the decision would come this afternoon. Hes trying to create a legal means to ignore Mi court ruling, count on it. If he was going to stop the recount he would have by now. I hope our side is prepared for it because they should have known what an Obama hack would do.

I haven't read the details of the article (it takes so long), but I'm suspecting Conyers is right.

Surely he is talking about the owner-slave arrangement between the Dem Party and the black folks of this country. The Electoral College System is perfectly suited for ending that relationship since it allows people like Donald Trump to be elected rather than some Plantation Owner Wannabe like Hillary.

I'll read the article later just to see if I was right. But I'm sure he meant to say "The End of Slavery" not just "Slavery".

Expect Deaf Ears to your post. But not from me. I love Trump but he is just dead wrong on this subject. And he will learn that when push comes to shove with Congress.

That Japanese guy with $50,000,000,000 that Trump brought out yesterday could have told us he was going to spend it all on Buicks. That would reduce the trade deficit by that amount and helped unemployment in Detroit.

But he didn’t. Instead he is spending those dollars on new startups. He will hire a ton of people here in the U.S. It will be just as helpful to the employment picture as it would had he bought the Buicks. And you don’t need a punitive tariff to accomplish it.

But it won’t reduce the trade deficit. And it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t.

Funny ISIS considers Turkish Islamists apostates. Nothing like Muslims warring on Muslims.
++++
That surprised me as well. Apparently there is disagreement amongst the Sunnis as just who is going to be in charge of the Next Great Caliphate.

Could it be that the decision to elect Ellison to head the DNC is being made in Riyadh rather than Washington D.C.? That would continue a trend that began in 2008 with Obama. Why break the "winning" streak?

If so, it's a done deal. It's a win-win. The GOP wins and Saudis win. Of course the Dems lose so maybe it should be characterized as a win-win-lose.

"... The tire case fell under a provision, called Section 421, that gives the President broad discretion on whether to impose quotas or tariffs when imports disrupt the U.S. market.

Ford wants to build a factory in Mexico. This is not dumping. This is not a disruption of U.S. markets. It has an impact on U.S. employment and that is the motive for Trump wanting the power to put a tariff on products imported from specific American companies.

He can do that. He just needs to get Congress to pass the applicable legislation.

If you look HERE you will read that Congress sets the rates for tariffs. Here is a sample:

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) was enacted by Congress and made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. The HTS comprises a hierarchical structure for describing all goods in trade for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. This structure is based upon the international Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS), administered by the World Customs Organization in Brussels ; the 4- and 6-digit HS product categories are subdivided into 8-digit unique U.S. rate lines and 10-digit non-legal statistical reporting categories. Classification of goods in this system must be done in accordance with the General and Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation, starting at the 4-digit heading level to find the most specific provision and then moving to the subordinate categories.

"Lockheed is seen as competing with Swedens Gripen fighter and Boeings F/A-18 for the Indian contract."

Building the aircraft in India would be a huge advantage for Lockheed (or Boeing) in this competition. What if the Swedes decide to build in India and Lockheed is prohibited from doing so? That could easily tip the balance in the Swede's favor. That's not going to help Ft. Worth one bit.

And, for all we know, it might be a requirement of the Indian competition.

The tariff is on American companies that try to have it both ways, not south korean TVs.
++++
I suppose you are correct about that but the principle still holds. There will be winners, losers and it will be the American public that pays the tariff.

35 % is a bit high. There would definitely be price increases to offset the tariffs. He may want to take a look at this issue from different perspectives and look for better tactics.

A tariff is a Federal tax paid by consumers. It takes money out our pockets and sends it to Washington D.C.T'm not a fan. Neither was Milton Friedman.

But it promotes job growth in this country in the areas directly affected by the tariff. However there will be a loss of buying power in the hands of the general public with all that money going to Washington D.C. This will depress sales and therefore employment in other areas. (We won't need as many HDTV salesman if we put a tariff on the import of Chinese and Korean TVs.) OTOH, we will need to add staff at the Treasury department to keep track of the tariff schedules and collections.

So there are pluses and there are minuses. Looking at just the positive aspects of the Trump Tariff Policy is a big mistake but the opposite is true as well.

I think Trump will get some power to try out his tariff ideas. But I seriously doubt that he will get his 35%. I would bet on something closer to 10% with some typical restrictions that Congress just loves to put on everything they touch.

An interesting experiment. We'll see how it turns out. I hope it proves successful but I'm really not confident that it will. Tax reductions and the elimination of oppressive rules and regulations will (IMHO) have a much bigger impact on the economy and employment.

I dont have a link, but I thought there were two different witnesses who saw a man carrying a small girl in pajamas.
++++
That is correct. It was Martin and Mary Smith. They were together and saw only one man carrying a young girl. The 2 images are their depictions of that man. This throws cold water on the prevailing John and Tony Podesta theory which is based mostly on these images.

The pictures look different. But it is what two witness thought he looked like when they both saw him very briefly and at the same time.

My Occams Razor doesnt compute trying to merge two totally different appearances into one person.

Nor me. But it is still more likely than two different people being seen with a child and reported to Scotland Yard. And Scotland Yard never mentioning the second report.

This was a quick exchange. People passing in the street at night walking in different directions. And no reason for the Smiths's to pay any particular notice. I have read elsewhere that a father carrying his young child is a pretty common occurrence in Portugal.

The two drawings do not remotely look like the same man. You say witnesses, as in plural. Could be witness A saw a girl with Man 1 and at a different time witness B saw the child with Man 2.
++++
Yes this could be the case but there is no evidence that it was.

These two images show up in discussions of the Smith testimony. There were, as I recall, 3 adults in the Smith party in addition to Mr. Smith who saw one man who was alone carrying a 3-4 year old girl. So the likelihood is that the drawings are simply different versions of the same man by Smith and one other in his party.

Well yes, "Crony Capitalism" is probably too broad a term for the Carrier case particularly when compared to the actual examples supplied in abundance by Obama.

But this was a deal that favored Carrier but not the refrigeration industry in general. That is not the way to go and if not "Crony Capitalism" it is still favoritism and will be painted as political when the goal (saving 1000 jobs) was, IMHO, quite honorable.

Bottom line is that we need less of this going forward and a rapid move by Trump to lower taxes and regulations. That will do the trick.

And we certainly need less Mark Levin ranting on the subject. He is burning bridges way faster than even Trump could build them.

"while something like the Solyndra solar power scam, producing only marginally useful products, was an out-and-out diversion of US Treasury funds into an unworkable business plan, but greatly rewarding the investors."

Hard to disagree with anything in your post.

Your Solyndra example is right on the mark. Solyndra vs Carrier is Apples to Oranges. Not even in the same league. Trump's motivation was to save jobs. Obama's motivation was to pay off his friends and impress his naive greenie supporters.

You are correct of course. The Leftist media will criticize Trump regardless of the virtues and actual successes of his actions.

But this article reflects criticism from the Right as well as the Left so it is not so easily dismissed. For example this one from the article is a typical conservative comment:

"Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?"

From my perspective the answer to that question is YES. OTOH it was great theater, brilliant PR and it sends a message, as the article notes, that help is on it's way to businesses everywhere. A net good thing despite the legitimate Crony Capitalism Tag.

My hope is that Trump will focus on the broad brush help that businesses need to get the economy back up and running and employment growing and will not pursue the Crony Capitalist habit of picking winners and losers. The article offers the rationale for that approach:

What's more, if Trump succeeds in cutting business taxes, allowing companies to repatriate money parked overseas, and easing the regulatory burden on job creators  as he's promised  he won't have to browbeat companies into keeping jobs here, because they will already be doing that, and creating millions more.

We can hardly wait to see how Trump's critics try to put a negative spin on that.

Also, the two pictures of the subjects are from two different witnesses who may not have been together and possibly at different times and locations that night. Accidental resemblance or two different perpetrators separately involved and seen by two different witnesses on the same night?
++++
Is there any evidence that the second image was based on anyone other than someone from the Smith Group? I will continue to assume two images by two witnesses of one suspect and one event until I see evidence that contradicts that scenario.

The pictures do look like the Podesta brothers. But the article says nothing about the source of the pictures.

Someone drew those pictures. Who were they? What did they see? Did they see two men together?

The inference is that witnesses saw two men with the girl.

Go find that witness. I have not been able to do so. I don’t believe there is such a witness. And at least one of those drawings if not both were based on the testimony of a witness or witnesses who saw ONE MAN WITH THE GIRL.

In a post above this one I noted that the source of the images you posted is based on Scotland Yard interviews of witnesses who saw only one man with a girl. I assume 2 drawings of supposedly the same person based on two witness descriptions.

I’m assuming so. But I could be wrong. Could the Tony P drawing be from a different source?

Do you have any additional information as to the source of the drawings? I believe both are related to the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw one man with a girl.

Although widely believed, this explanation remains unsubstantiated. We do know, however, that these words are code for something.

++++

You and I understand that. We may be alone.

The code is either just speculation as to the translation of each term or a well kept secret. I have searched Google for a confirmation of the list we have all been looking at and find nothing earlier than November 3, 2016.

And those images of John and Tony Podesta that we have all been looking at are also a bit mysterious. They show up in Google images for the first time in 2013. The abduction was in 2007.

It is worth noting, however, that the images do seem to be legit and from Scotland Yard.

More importantly, the witnesses, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, children and grandchildren, did not see two men with a child near the crime scene. THEY SAW ONLY ONE MAN. The drawings must therefore be of images of one man as recreated by two witnesses. For me this puts a pretty big hole in the Jonn and Tony did it theory. As I recall these witness thought the man they saw was younger than either John or Tony. (Skunks both so don't get the idea that I'm defending either of them.)

Bottom line. There is something going on here but mostly we are getting misleading information while we watch Alex Jones get even richer.

"Donald Trumps controversial decision to hold a 10-minute phone call with Taiwans president, Tsai Ing-wen, was caused by the billionaires lack of foreign policy experience, a mouthpiece for the Chinese government has claimed."